1 APHC010085602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 4418/2025 Between: Puram Rajendra ...PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. and another ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a Writ or Order or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the respondent No.2 in interfering with the property of the petitioner in Door bearing No.3/146-14-12-A-1. S.No.105/1, 2 and 3, Plot No.2 of Madanapalle Town,Annamayya District, Andhra Pradesh in an extent of 122.2 Sq.yards in Electricity Service Connection No.5211700082555, Municipal Tax Assessment No.1009029780 to demolish the same under the guise of the confirmation Order which is in the nature of nonspeaking order in Notice No.63/1009/MDP/UC/2024 dated 29.06.2024 without considering the reply of the petitioner dated 29.06.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to Article 300A of the Constitution of India as well as oppose to principles of natural justice consequentially direct the respondents more particularly the respondent No.2 not to interfere with the property of the petitioner to demolish the same under the guise of the confirmation Order in Notice No.63/1009/MDP/UC/2024 dated 29.06.2024 in Door bearing No.3/146-14-12-A-1. S.No.105/1, 2 and 3, Plot No.2 of Madanapalle Town, Annamayya District, Andhra Pradesh in an extent of 122.2 Sq.yards in Electricity Service Connection No.5211700082555, Municipal Tax Assessment No.1009029780….” 2. The petitioner purchased a house bearing Door No.3/146-14-12-A-1 in Sy.No.105/1, 2 and 3, Plot No.2 of Madanapalle Town, Annamayya District, in an extent of 122.22 sq.yards, from its rightful owner through registered Sale deed bearing Document No.2054/2023 dated 02.03.2023. Prior to purchase of the subject property, the 2nd respondent assessed the municipal tax and thereafter the electricity department also provided a service connection. 3. While the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued a provisional notice on 20.06.2024, directing the petitioner to stop further construction forthwith and to show sufficient cause as to why the unauthorized construction should not be removed/altered or pulled down, within 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which, the further action would be taken as per 3 law. For which, the petitioner submitted his explanation. However, without considering his explanation, the 2nd respondent passed a Confirmation Order on 29.06.2024. On 17.02.2025, the staff of the 2nd respondent Municipality visited the property, claiming that they would demolish the structures in question. Challenging the said action, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and Ms.V.Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 5. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 produced a copy of instructions of the 2nd respondent, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has made unauthorized constructions and the respondents have issued a provisional notice to the petitioner on 20.06.2024 specifying the unauthorized construction though the petitioner submitted an explanation to the said provisional order, the respondents, without considering the same, have proceeded further by issuing a Confirmation Order on 29.06.2024 stating that a show-cause notice dated 20.06.2024 under Section 228(1 & 2) of APM Act 1965 and 89(1 & 2) of APMR & UD Act 2016 was served on the petitioner, but the petitioner has not complied with the lawful direction given to him. Therefore, as per APM Act 1965, the petitioner is liable for punishment under Sections 217, 228(3) & 340 of AP Municipalities Act 1965. Thereafter, the respondents have also filed a charge sheet against the petitioner vide U.C.No.63/1009/MDP/UC/2024 dated 05.07.2024 before the concerned Court and the same is pending for trial. 4 6. Though the petitioner claims to have filed explanation in pursuance of the Provisional Notice dated 20.06.2024, admittedly, on perusal of the said explanation, this Court is of the opinion that the same is not endorsed by the respondents, therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration by this Court. 7. As the petitioner failed to submit explanation, the respondents have rightly issued Confirmation Order, thereafter, proceeded by filing charge sheet dated 05.07.2024 in the present case. As the entire process has already been completed pursuant to the Provisional Notice, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said charge sheet before the trial Court. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 20.02.2025 KGR